Is it a good idea to make Voluntary Euthanasia legal?

With adequate safeguards – yes in my opinion. It should be that person’s own decision. We are living in a bloody nanny state already, but thats another thread.
Martin

Geoff,
You're right it is a serious subject that should on occassion be
discussed, but in my opinion, not by the Law. The "YouthinAsia" question as some
Londonders (amongst others)refer to it, I feel upholds this argument. Holland in
contrast to UK (England) has many well meaning social programms that work in
Holland, for a Dutch Society, but wouldn't work in UK.
Making it a legal issue
will produce more problems and hypocracy + ignorance (Press etc) than are
already there. Be honest all UK people out there, on this issue when it
seriously affects either you, loved ones, or friends, wether it be a no -
chance baby not being fed and left to slip away, or Grannie etc, with incurable
pain and illness being given a little too much Morphine, by the Doc in question,
life support being switched off, or Aids patients, saying enough is enough in a
hospice. The Powers that are required are already there, and are acted upon
daily "It's true, you know it is" . Legalising it in that sense (don't forget
even those poor souls that managed to bring the subject to the Public forefront,
were the tip of a never ending iceberg, that in their cases had raised enough
finance and publicity interest to do something about it) the majority are not.
Some religions deny their members life saving medication, even in our
societies (wrong under 18 I think), others threaten suicidees with
ex-communication, and family disgrace, or condom use, or both. The Powers that
be are there, and are regularly checked by the said professionals involved, not
playing God, just being realistic. Some people will think of our Doctor chappy
in UK that bumped off so many old people with almost uncanny ease, that can be
better controlled with a National Data Base, including info on the same person
under previous names, legally changed by deed poll, wether male or female.

Germany has a historic problem with legal euthenasia for obvious reasons
, but like UK & many other countries all over the World irresspective of their
cultures or religions I expect practice similar decision making case by case
with all relevant people involved wherever possible, innit.

Fritz Von Swindonrulestheroostforabetterlittleengland

Bottom Line is: I'm against legalising it, but I'm for De-criminalising it.(All over Europe / Even Poland) Where people are involved nothing is perfect, death sentences for the innocent for example, but what's the alternative ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Geoff P: So here's the point. Assuming that procedures are put in place to protect the process from abuse,

---

That's the problem though, right there!! I know of an instance where someone changed their fathers will with the help of a solicitor (they were Masons), to cut out others and grab the lot themselves - and they succeeded too! I had a very similar experience myself with my own father who re-married (he was also a Mason - what goes around comes around). It just isn't safe enough. It really isn't.

I find the idea of legalising euthanasia utterly chilling. This is partly because I cannot come to terms with the idea of a society allowing the killing of human beings other than in war. But this is just my emotional reaction - it is beyond rational debate.

However, setting that aside, I find it difficult to believe that suitable safeguards could be found. And how could any safeguard prevent someone with low self-esteem who has come to believe they are a burden on others from choosing euthanasia?

Finally, I must point out that we already have an apparently legal form of euthanasia [apart from the late abortion of inconvenient unborn children] that is particularly brutal - people in so-called "Persistent Vegetative States" being "allowed to die" - i.e. slowly starved to death by having food and water denied them. Sickening.

quote:

---

Finally, I must point out that we already have an apparently legal form of euthanasia [apart from the late abortion of inconvenient unborn children] that is particularly brutal - people in so-called "Persistent Vegetative States" being "allowed to die" - i.e. slowly starved to death by having food and water denied them. Sickening.

---

This is really the point behind my question. I have to admit to a similar experience within my family. I don't want to go into details but the key point was that even though the "being allowed to die" thing finally happened there was a period of extended suffering beyond the point where ineveitable death was reqcognised which distressed both the surviving relatives, but also the person who was disintegrating in front of our eyes.

I recognise this is a horrendus minefield which has no simple answer because of the infinite ways in which it can be abused. Perhaps it is unfair to offer it for debate, even if it is a sad comment on the human pshyce that people will abuse this.

regards
Geoff

A subject I feel that can be discussed until the cows come home and never will a amicable solution be found as people are involved, at their very essence. Mentally sick people with incurable illnessness and pain etc (who decides)
the pro's on the scene in every case can only decide guided by their rules and instincts.
I wonder iffolkthe habit of changing wills and testaments for (I assume) financial gain ? would be so enthuiastic, if Debts were inherent
(even when alive) as is the case in this Country ?I'm off to the tax office now to get my dosh sorted, Happy Orthodox Christmas Day to everybody too.

FRitz Von Realworldishardchapsasyouknow

Always in interesting debate, strong views on all sides, especially if you have personally been involved in these situations.

A few things to consider

1) Living wills made many years previously, when fit and well usually, may not reflect our opinions and wishes when we are much older and actually facing death. Things can look quite different then. They are valuable expressions of opinion but there is a risk applying them blankly 25yrs later to a situation that could not have been anticipated by their author.

2) The Dutch experience has not been enitirely positive. There is still considerable concern by medical and patient groups that patients and doctors have been subject to coercion and other external pressures around end-of-life decisions.

3) Questions about 'suitable' conditions exist. Terminal illness may appear simple. What about tetraplegia or brain injury (with reasonably normal life expectancy)? Depression? 'Healthy' old age but with blindness/deafness)? Bereavement? Unemployment? Paedophilia? Not easy stuff. Very large differences in principle between accelerating terminal decline and actively shortening a more normal lifespan.

4) The law does already provide appropriate protection to doctors in the UK. We have the principle of double effect-whereby treatment can be given (or withheld) to a patient if the prime aim is to alleviate pain/suffering/distress etc even though a secondary effect is to shorten life. This test is used. Some high-profile test cases have been triggerred by questionable medical behaviour.



My very personal view is that the law is always a crude tool in these situations where each is difficult and unique. We should have a sensible legal and ethical framework, backed up by far better communication of intentions and options between patients/relatives/doctors. To take things beyond accelerating a patient's demise in a terminal situation by extending euthanasia to the disabled etc is a minefield. I'd not vote for a Dutch system over what we have. I should be able deliver appropriate care in almost all situations if I use my skills and apply current legal and ethical principles.

Bruce

PS Geoff-need to be careful not to confuse assisted suicide (as ocurred in the 'Swiss case'), with euthanasia. Similar but not the same.

[This message was edited by Bruce Woodhouse on TUESDAY 06 January 2004 at 07:53.]

[This message was edited by Bruce Woodhouse on TUESDAY 06 January 2004 at 08:40.]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JeremyD:
- people in so-called "Persistent Vegetative States" being "allowed to die" - i.e. slowly starved to death by having food and water denied them. Sickening.

---

It is not unusual for some doctors to provide something to "ease" the passage when things have gone so far, although this is generally not discussed obviously.